Pharyngula

Posted by: Shala | August 21, 2010 7:13 PM

Sounds highly unconstitutional to me!

I can't wait to see all the xians, who clearly care about the law, denounce this behaviour.

*crickets*

Posted by: jeffery.g.davis | August 21, 2010 7:15 PM

Wait PZ, the military is doing something unconstitutional and wasteful??? That can't be right.

Posted by: Stardrake | August 21, 2010 7:21 PM

I don't care if there's an officer shortage.

Cashier this fucker, NOW!

Posted by: Capital Dan | August 21, 2010 7:26 PM

Yeah. And, don't forget, Christians are the "persecuted" ones.

Shit like this turns my freakin' stomach. The last thing this country needs is a Christian military. However, I suppose if you're looking for gullible people who refuse to use reason and won't question orders, as well as also having a serious kink toward punishing those who don't believe as they do, then I guess I can see why the higher-ups would want those freakin' zombies in their ranks.

Posted by: cyan | August 21, 2010 7:27 PM

I just sent a link to this to Mitch Stewart, the head of "Organizing for America", President Obama's brainchild for receiving input for change.

Let's hope he listens, thinks, and then acts on this.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 21, 2010 7:27 PM

The headline implies a pre-existent state of competence without supporting evidence, and in gross contradiction to reports from numerous non-commissioned personnel.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 21, 2010 7:36 PM

Since when has the actual Constitution (rather than the fictional Constitution wingnuts believe in*) stopped the Christian Dominionists?

*You know, it has 5 statements in it:

1. This is a Christian Nation
2. 2nd Amendment, penis-extenders, i mean guns for ALL!
3. States can do whatever the fuck they want and the federal government has to get bent, but only if they are the right type of states.
4. No judicial activism.
5. Biblical rules apply**. Read MOAR SCRIPTURE!

**Calvinball Evangelical Biblical Interpretation only.

Posted by: saerrock | August 21, 2010 7:39 PM

I am bemused,as a non-US citizen isn't this behaviour prohibited under the Establishment Clause?
Aside from that aspect, just what the military needs whilst engaged in a war against terror that involves a muslim enemy, the propagandists are going to have a filed day reliving the Crusades again.
From a military perspective, this programme needs shutting down ASAP & the money better used to provide rehab to injured veterans.

Posted by: vanbeverningk | August 21, 2010 7:40 PM

It LOOKS as if this issue is already being taken care of (in the usual way):

Luckily, Mikey Weinstein from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is involved in this. It’s left me to wonder if that’s why Chambers is no longer an installation command (as of June 2010) and now a director at some supply dump on an Air Force Base. It’s definitely a step down in the career ladder -going from Installation Commander with hundreds of subordinate commanders to director of logistics on a base that doesn’t even belong to the Army.

http://breakingspells.net/maj-gen-james-e-chambers-hazes-soldiers-in-his-command/

And yes, looks like he IS out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Combined_Arms_Support_Command

But what did we expect from a 'subordinate command' called "Training and Doctrine Command"!
Doctrine? Dogma!

This is weird: there apparently are MORE Maj.General James E Chambers's! What are the odds? (This one retired in 1994!): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RBE/is_2004_Annual/ai_n8569531/

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 21, 2010 7:46 PM

Those of us that chose not to attend (about 80, or a little less that half) were marched back to the company area. At that point the NCO issued us a punishment.

Collective punishment is illegal. I would have spent my time in the barracks writing a letter to Chambers's immediate superior and another letter to my congressman. I wouldn't have complained about Chambers's mandatory concerts, I'd complain about being punished without committing an offense against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and for a collective punishment being given.

Posted by: jafafahots | August 21, 2010 7:53 PM

That's disgraceful. People should have a free choice of which god to kill people in the name of.

Posted by: elucifuga | August 21, 2010 7:54 PM

Given the similar problems at the Air Force Academy and other recent reports of christian proselytism in Iraq and elsewhere, it is time for a concerted effort by ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) to begin a vigorous legal action. The AU has enetered a few such cases, for example, but more has to be done.

As a retired reserve Army officer on active duty during Korean 'police action' and 28 additional years in active Army Reserve until 1981, I can say I did not run into any similar problems. This appears to be a more recent serious problem that is part of the far-right political/religious movement apparent in many other aspects of our society.

This really needs a lot of opposition from thinking citizens and appropriate organizations. The actions reported are clearly unconstitutional.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4 | August 21, 2010 8:05 PM

My husband is a vet and he said he never experienced proselytizing but that many people tried to persuade him to come to church with them, etc...(this was a bit before we both realized we are atheists); he also said he was never really pressured about it if he said "no". However, one of the reasons I stopped going to the family support group meetings on base was because of the level of proselytizing by family members there and I felt the pressure. This story doesn't surprise me in the least, but I will admit that when I first read it a few days ago I though "there has to be something more to this" but I haven't been able to find anything more to it. I'm deeply disturbed that this went up as far in the ranks as it did and that they are taking place so close to home.
Squigit

Posted by: mmelliott01 | August 21, 2010 8:14 PM

Cashier this fucker, NOW!

Oh come on -- it's not like he's gay or something.

Posted by: marion.craig62 | August 21, 2010 8:22 PM

Well I had a choice at Lackland AFB, TX; go to "service" on Sunday, or spend the time waxing the toilets, or whatever other meaningless activity they could think of. It's strange how much more religious some branches have become over the years.

Posted by: majormik | August 21, 2010 8:23 PM

As a 24 year veteran of the Army National Guard (over 4 years of which has been on active duty in some capacity due to deployments, schools, special work, etc.) I personally have never had religion "forced" on me per se. The closest I came was in basic when we had a choice of barracks maintenance (cleaning) or church. Although that may seem like a punishment, in Basic you are occupied all of the time, the only exceptions are the bathroom, church, and sleep (at night - hehe...don't let them catch you fall asleep during the day!).

Over the years I have had many of my peers try to get me to attend church and even tease me about being a heathen after I admitted to them that I was an atheist. It was never something that truly bothered me. I've had some good spirited debates with my religious friends.

This new spiritual fitness program does disturb me a bit though. I believe one of the main intents of the program is very noble. They are trying to combat the army's high rate of suicide and have finally realized they need to take care of both the physical soldier as well as his mental health. The unfortunate side affect of this program though is that they have decided "spiritual" strength is helpful to prevent suicidal behavior - hence the veiled proselytizing.

Anyone with a little bit of intestinal fortitude can avoid or refuse these programmed religious events, except in those few exceptional situations like the above article where some asshat with some rank takes it a bit too far.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 21, 2010 8:27 PM

Not only is the general's behavior unconstitutional, it is also a violation of the military oath of office:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[Last sentence is optional.]

Can he be court-martialed for this?

This type of behavior is why I make all the Boy Scouts I do citizenship merit badge with read the Constitution and highlight every time God or Christianity is mentioned.

Posted by: James F | August 21, 2010 8:30 PM

Private Joker, do you believe in the Virgin Mary?

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 21, 2010 8:39 PM

I'd love to see the reaction if a Muslim General tried this. Hypocrites all...

You know, I don't actually enjoy watching bloodbaths.

*You know, it has 5 statements in it:

So... full... of... win...

Despite peer pressure, and the military knows how to do peer pressure, about half of them refused. Nice to know that these young people are willing to refuse, willing to accept the consequences. This is a good sign for the military...and must scare the hell out of their commanders.

Oh yes.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 21, 2010 8:46 PM

elucifuga: I am sorry, but I beg to differ. This "military christian" mentality has been alive and well for many years now. Perhaps it is more blatant and bold in these recent years (since 9/11) but believe me, it was alive and well in the Boar War which allegedly ended in 1902 but spread into World War 1, and into World War 2, and the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War, and the ... well you can see the pattern.

It's been there. Not always obvious - kind of like "race or color or creed or..." it is not "really" there, but it is there.

In reading my father's "secret" diaries of his military experience (as well as my 2 of my uncle's alleged diaries - USS Pensacola, Cobra, etc., come to mind), it's been there. I say SECRET because anyone involved in World War 2 (from the copy of the orders that I have) were specifically forbidden to keep "diaries", of active military service or inactive service (i.e., even after you died).

It was there.

And to bring a whole new "subject", from my perspective, I have to agree with many historians, that patriotism and militarism which are separatism at their core stems from religiosity.

Posted by: clemxxx | August 21, 2010 8:49 PM

The proselytizing is not new, and not always at a group level. In the Navy in the early eighties, a classified piece of equipment maintained by my division went missing. They called in NIS to investigate. They individually interrogated all of us. Bear in mind that the interrogator was an officer (I was a noncom), and NIS has aspects of the CIA and the FBI. The point is that this guy could strip me of my security clearance with a word, ruin my record, get me demoted, have me thrown in the brig and/or court martialed, have me discharged, or conceivably 'disappear' me in the name of security, so there was a considerable atmosphere of intimidation. It took about three minutes to establish that I had no contact with the item in question and knew nothing of its whereabouts. I then sat through over two hours of fundie browbeating. I should mention that I was and am an atheist and I told him so. I finally escaped by telling the interrogator that, if I believed a word of his religious crap, I would have no choice but to become a Satanist. Earlier milder demurrals were ignored or used as reasons to imply that my beliefs were suspicious.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 21, 2010 8:57 PM

clemxxx,

Have seen this, it has not changed. Some units are better at it than others. Time has not changed. Maybe it's about time that it does.

Posted by: HH | August 21, 2010 9:10 PM

If I was a tiny bit more paranoid, I'd be wondering why Evangelicals are so keen to have a Christian military.

Posted by: Doug | August 21, 2010 9:14 PM

late as usual, but I also wanted to throw in a plug for the MRFF. My military experience ended more than twenty years ago, but even then there was still religious pressure applied by the higher-ups. Watch "Constantine's Sword" for some good background on Mikey Weinstein and his cause. MRFF makes do on contributions. Times are tough, but it's a very good cause.

Posted by: bobapril | August 21, 2010 9:21 PM

There does seem to be a little confusion about the General's crimes here. He didn't use force to make troops attend, and probably wouldn't have approved of that if he'd known. That was the bright idea of a young captain, and the failure of his NCOs to tell him what a mistake he was making. The captain and his NCOs need to face charges for that - but apparently only that captain's company was coerced so blatantly, so we can't tag the big guy with that.

Mind you, MG Chambers is still in the wrong by creating this single-religion "spiritual fitness" program in the first place, and should be charged with misappropriation of government funds for all the money he's wasting on it. Oh, and for creating a hostile work environment where his subordinate officers would believe this was a good idea.

Posted by: mxh | August 21, 2010 9:24 PM

I'm sure this is one case that made it into the media of hundreds. I am furious that millions of my money is being spent on christian rock concerts. Wtf? Why isn't that money spent on something more useful (like body armor or better healthcare for vets?).

Posted by: mxh | August 21, 2010 9:32 PM

@#37 It's also good news that the Pentagon is investigating this violation of the Establishment Clause. It will be interesting to find out what they're going to do about it.

I'm sure they won't end up doing crap. This sort of thing has been going on in the military (particularly the air force) for a long time. It's even made it out in the media occasionally. There's fake concern and surprise that this would happen, an investigation is started, maybe a scapegoat is found, then the story dies down and it continues just as before.

Posted by: Capital Dan | August 21, 2010 9:50 PM

It must be tough for a soldier signing up to protect this country and the rights of its people only to wind up protecting Christianity instead.

Posted by: imflyboy | August 21, 2010 10:07 PM

Maybe I'm a little paranoid but I really worry about stuff like this. We assume our military would not act on a illegal, suicidal order from a deranged Commander in Chief or other civilian leader. But imagine if a nut like Palin, who believes we're in the "end times", was in the oval office and thought that she'd be able to party with Jebus if only the rapture would occur. Someone like this might try and provoke a nuclear war if they feel like prophecy is being fulfilled and the military might follow these orders. I fly with enough conservative former military nuts and I think there's a disturbing trend in the upper ranks for those of us who think that the end of our species is not a good thing to be concerned

Posted by: Aquaria | August 21, 2010 10:15 PM

In basic, I got to the point of not going to church and not cleaning toilets by volunteering for dorm guard duty on Sunday mornings. It took only one visit to be creeped the fuck out by the holy roller church the AF kahunas pushed us toward. It was creepy enough that the Catholics were sane in comparison for a couple of weeks, until I could broker a deal with my TI that didn't involve toilets.

I was praised, with a wink, for my "initiative." The TI knew exactly why I volunteered, and went along. Not everyone is so lucky.

The military can find lots of other ways to coerce you into religitardery, though. My career was almost sunk by a religious nut reporting official who gave me disastrous evaluation scores.

The first day a new shop chief took over, I asked to speak privately, and stated my grievances. I specifically mentioned how i felt discriminated against by a religious Fruit Loop, and that I was fed up enough to go over heads until the situation was resolved to my satisfaction, namely getting the nut the fuck away from me.

I got the religitard removed not only from evaluating my performance but also from the shop entirely, and had the AF scrambling to make sure I got a promotion in the next cycle: swamping the system with monthly performance evals, putting me in charge of projects to polish my evals, giving me a "there, there, calm down" medal...

I wasn't stupid. I took the opportunity and fucking ran with it. I was totally ate up (very gung ho) for the rest of my time in the AF. Too bad the husband at the time got transferred to a base I couldn't get a transfer to, just when I was tearing up the fast track.

Sigh.

I have some very twisted stories about my efforts to fight back and stay afloat in the AF before I finally got someone to listen to me. I was kinda scary.

Okay, I was really scary. I can't help being hell on wheels when I'm in survival mode.

Posted by: Oort | August 21, 2010 10:25 PM

I'll add in that during my Basic Training in Lost in the Woods, Misery (er... Fort Lenard Wood, Missouri) we faced much of the same thing. When Sunday rolled around we were put into formation and asked who would be attending. They would be put into another group that would march off to church, the rest of us would be assigned cleaning duty. If you finished before they got back you were assigned something else and it usually had something to do with cleaning the toilets very closely.

When the church group got back they would then be released to do as they wished as far as the limitations of basic training would go. They could study their manuals, write letters home, organize/clean their personal space (lockers), have access to the quad for jogging or other excercise, etc and were generally given a pretty light day. Those of us that did not attend would continue to clean until lunch time.

The one time someone dared broach it to the drill sergeants they were told something like "if you choose not to have a clean godly heart then you will have a clean godly barracks"

This was back in 1986

Posted by: Aquaria | August 21, 2010 10:34 PM

I am trying to say that it's about time that we change the fundamental foundation on why this is happening in the first place.

This.

I can't speak for the other branches of service, or the modern AF, but 25 years ago, the AF used to give numerous talks about not discriminating against women or minorities or people of different faiths. You got it over and over at Lackland. You got it at your orientation to a new base. You got it in stand up talks.

You could always tell when someone had forgotten those warnings when a letter came down, reminding everyone that discrimination or harassment would not be tolerated, and would result in reprimand or administrative action as per AF reg blah blah blah, UCMJ honk honk honk. Direct order, yadda yadda yadda. Sign here to acknowledge receipt, yeah yeah yeah. This always meant that a complaint had been filed, and the AF wasn't going to miss a chance to hammer us over the head not to be idiots like the idiot causing the letter/stand up talk. Plus, they had you by the balls with your sig there. You knew the policy was wrong--see, you signed the paper saying it was--so you can't say you didn't know.

Has the AF stopped doing this?

Posted by: Buzzerfly | August 21, 2010 10:38 PM

I think a lot of people are missing the entire gist of the story here... This General is being investigated because this type of behavior is NOT common, nor is it close to being legal. It may have been the NCO in charge of the soldiers that made this decision to fill their time, regardless of whether it was right or wrong (& yes, we know it was a bad call). I am nearing the end of 24 years of active duty service, and I have NEVER seen pressure put on sailors or soldiers to attend any type of religious event. I especially enjoy reading posts from some pretty ignorant people who seem to think that those of us who serve are mindless robots who can't think for ourselves. We do try to embody selfless service, but that is quite a bit different. Many if not most of my peers have at least a Master's Degree and continually strive to improve ourselves through education. Peace out.

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 21, 2010 10:51 PM

Well, some people apparently experienced it and others of us did not. Believe the point is to try and ensure it ceases and is censured when it does appear. Like I said above, happy with the fact that nearly half of the troops just said no.

Dammit!, how deep our historical heads can be buried based upon current circumstances.

Can someone other than LeeLeeOne tell me what this actually means?

Posted by: The Rambling Scholar | August 21, 2010 11:28 PM

Coming in a bit late, but I wanted to chime in with the others who had said that this sort of thing didn't happen to them. I work on a joint service base at the moment, and we do get training all the time on respecting everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. We are told over and over again that this sort of thing is not only morally wrong, but that we can be disciplined if we discriminate or try to force our beliefs on others. In boot camp, on Sundays, we had the option of staying in the compartment and taking a shower/writing a letter/shining shoes/etc. or going to whichever religious service we wanted. There was NEVER any pressure to do one thing or the other. If we stayed behind (and most of us did) no questions were asked. If people went to Catholic Mass one Sunday and the Wiccan service the next Sunday and then the Buddhist service after that...they didn't care, they didn't ask.

So in my own personal experience, at least, I haven't had anything remotely close to this. I'm glad that this General is being investigated, it means someone did the right thing and reported it.

Posted by: Foggg | August 22, 2010 12:41 AM

To a christian "concert" by BarlowGirl? WTF?

Should I be worried that our military's officers think our fighting soldiers will be impressed with a show that makes the Partridge Family look, in comparison, like Black Sabbath?

Posted by: FounderEffect | August 22, 2010 1:11 AM

Thanks, 5agan and others who have resisted the pressure. You remind us that the military is still diverse, despite these situations (my cousin's husband, now a retired base commander, has hardly spoken to me since we "discussed" Darwin in the '80s, so I extrapolated and assumed...). I hope that your rationality makes a difference.

Posted by: The Rambling Scholar | August 22, 2010 1:46 AM

Tenebras, with all due respect...you're starting to sound as paranoid as Faux News. Please remove your cranium from your anal cavity. The military is full of people from all walks of life. I've met more YEC's here than ever before...and I've met many more atheists too. I've met bigots and liberals and intelligent people and people who are only good for chipping paint if they have an instruction manual. I am not a pawn, wicked, brainless, or an evangelical and I don't know a single other person in the service who is either. Nor do I have any reason to believe that PZ's son is anything like that. So stop generalizing, please.

Posted by: Nepenthe | August 22, 2010 2:36 AM

I am not a pawn

Can any cogent argument be made that soldiers are not cogs in the military machine?

Posted by: Equisetum | August 22, 2010 2:52 AM

When I was in basic (way back in 1990 (like, last century, dude!)) we had a choice between attending services or going on 10k runs.

When I was in basic (1982) we had a choice between going to services and chilling out in the barracks. All this proselytizing stuff was actively avoided during my time in the Air Force (I don't know if the Academy was fucked up backed then). I even had a very evangelical shop chief who knew to keep his religion to himself.

Was I just lucky, or has the military changed really changed that much?

Posted by: Rorschach | August 22, 2010 3:13 AM

Can any cogent argument be made that soldiers are not cogs in the military machine?

Your question-begging is noted.
As to pawns,I guess you'd have to be up a bit in the military hierarchy to not be considered, or consider yourself, a pawn.Other people make decisions for you, who in turn have decisions made for them by people even higher up the food chain.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | August 22, 2010 4:19 AM

I have a solution to all this. Those military units that are breaking the barrier between church and state must get docked 7% of their pay. Hit these bastards in their pockets and watch it hurt. All chaplains should automatically be effected by this policy.

Posted by: MarkNS | August 22, 2010 5:05 AM

I retired from Canadian Air Force in 2008 after 27 years service. My experience was that religion in our military declined steadily over that time such that now, as I work with the military as a contractor, I find myself surrounded by atheists and agnostics.
In basic training (way back in 81) we had to attend either a protestant or catholic church service on Sunday. Over the years, while prayers are still offered on parade and grace at dinners, there was no other pressure to participate in any type of religious mumbo jumbo.
It's distressing that our closest ally seems to be sliding back to the dark ages.

Posted by: John Morales | August 22, 2010 5:31 AM

Nepenthe, less like cogs in a mechanical machine and more like black box actuators in a fly-by-wire system? With fuzzy logic, mostly.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | August 22, 2010 7:01 AM

I'm appreciating the personal anecdotes from people who have actually served in armed forces. It shows that there is a problem, even though it's not a disastrous pandemic (yet). I think it entices me to forward a little something to the MRFF so that more people can speak out and keep this thing from turning into a horror film.

I never signed up for any services myself. A comic book was distributed in Canada (although I think it was from a US publisher) that illustrated abuses that can happen in the various branches, and even just a couple of anecdotes left me with a giant NO FUCKING WAY attitude about ever joining the military. That, coupled with my utter disdain for anything resembling morning, was what kept me as far away from anything in a uniform as possible.

I guess now that I think of it there were other reasons. Like the story on 60 Minutes (or one of those shows) where some poor sod was choking to death during a tear-gas/gas mask training session in a cabin and his mask wasn't fitting right. And an acquaintance in the infantry who was marched for so long he started hallucinating that the cows along the way were singing to him. It didn't help that he was carrying a mortar at the time. Plus the fact that he was on a mortar crew and losing his hearing in his 20s.

You have to really hand it to people that sign up for something like that and actually hang with it, whether out of altruism or career necessity (or both). The last thing they should be made to do is be forced to smoke the religious crack despite the Constitution saying how vile such an act is.

Posted by: KG | August 22, 2010 7:27 AM

it was alive and well in the Boar War which allegedly ended in 1902 but spread into World War 1

Yeah! Someone (who?) really showed those herds of wild pigs a thing or two! Meanwhile, in the contemporaneous Boer War, the then world-spanning British Empire struggled to defeat a rabble of Afrikaner irregulars, but finally succeeded in 1902 (quite a coincidence). That was twelve years before World War One, with which it had no obvious connection.

Posted by: Tim Harris | August 22, 2010 8:23 AM

'It's un-American, or it should be' are PZ's last words. Not being American, I don't want to sound un- or anti-American myself, but to an outsider this story seems all too American. I should be glad to be told otherwise, but I cannot imagine this sort of thing, which seems not to be unusual (General Boykin, the proselytising in the American air-force, the evangelizers in Iraq with their bibles in Iraq, etc), happening elsewhere. What is it in American society and culture that creates this? This is the question that surely needs to be very seriously addressed.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | August 22, 2010 8:55 AM

I don't care if there's an officer shortage.

Cashier this fucker, NOW!

Posted by: choupick | August 22, 2010 9:41 AM

This crap makes me sick. They should fire this guy and make post commanders repay every dime spent on "spiritual fitness"

@ oursally Your understanding of our military doctrine is completely wrong. Each higher command issues an operation order where the intent of that command and the mission is stated. Then each lower command plans how they will accomplish their part of the mission and issues a similar order to their subordinate units. US troops have the same latitude as any other (for instance if you can't accomplish the mission as planned, but can meet the intent via a different action then that's what you do.) I don't know where you got your information but it is wrong. And yes I've worked with French, Brit, Aussies, Dutch, Polish, Romanian, and German forces so I am at least partially aware of the actual differences in doctrine.

PS What would be the point of including "if you can" in an order? Guys take that bridge with C company, it is crucial to the advance. If we don't get it we be pinned down. But only do it if you can. If you can't then don't worry about it. We will just sit here in the valley and continue to get hit.

Posted by: Matrim | August 22, 2010 10:23 AM

Anyone with a little bit of intestinal fortitude can avoid or refuse these programmed religious events, except in those few exceptional situations like the above article where some asshat with some rank takes it a bit too far.

Well, you've been lucky. When I was active duty we had to put up with all sorts of religious shit. Some of it was subtle (like the protestants getting pretty much a pass whenever they wanted to do churchy stuff) some of it was obvious (like listening to the new base commander proselytize for nearly forty-five minutes during his assumption of command speech...and other speeches later). When I was in Germany we had all sorts of quasi-religious bullshit we (effectively) had to attend. Nothing quite so extreme as the story above, but some nearly as bad...

Posted by: johnlil#0a224 | August 22, 2010 10:35 AM

During the first Gulf War, which we sensibly cut short, American troops joked that the war's motto was "Onward Christian Soldiers" (We had Arab allies, such as Saudi Arabia, who weren't very enthusiastic).
During the second Gulf War, soldiers painted "Jesus Killed Muhammad" on the sides of Bradleys and other transport trucks.
Does anybody wonder whey they hate us? If I were Muslim, I'd hate this country, too. These are clearly religious crusades, no matter how much we insist they aren't.

Posted by: The Rambling Scholar | August 22, 2010 11:12 AM

KG @ 101

I actually feel better knowing that it's military members who run the military. IMO, it's safer for me, it's safer for my shipmates, and it's safer for whatever mission we may be running. The higher ups (both enlisted and officer) have been there. They have done the job, they know what it takes to do the job, and they have a reasonable (usually) expectation on what can be done and how to do it with minimal damage. I shudder to think if Congress or random civilians micromanaged my life. Definitely have checks and balances, both within and outside the ranks. But as Bush proved, if one doesn't know about what it's like, you shouldn't be waving your hand around and saying "make it so." He and much of Congress didn't have a a real clue on how to run a campaign and then people were surprised when it all went to Hell. There were lots of things wrong with various campaigns, but ignorance parading as power had a lot to do with it.

Where I'm stationed I'm lucky enough to have a great chain of command. (And close to zero religious influence, thankfully!) Perhaps I'm in the minority, I certainly hope not, but I do know they're better to run this base than civilians who haven't been in the military before. They listen to us, they change policy if it's reasonable and enough troops want it. They know how to support us when we need it, and they are swift to discipline those of us who are dirtbags (one DUI and you are going home for good.) We are constantly given sensitivity training on sexual harrassment, Equal Opportunity, Suicide Prevention, etc. and it all comes from our point of view, not what someone out there in the ether decides we should know. They don't automatically get our trust, they earn it just like anyone else. And this particular command has earned my trust. Is the military perfect? No. But then who is? Lol, sorry for rambling on, but those are just my thoughts on it.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 22, 2010 12:17 PM

As someone else noted above, in basic you are NEVER allowed to not be doing something, except at night after lights out. The going to services thing is to provide religious soldiers with something that they are entitled to.

I am somewhat baffled by the insistence that people have to be "doing something" at all times, whether during basic training or anywhere else. We run into this periodically during boy scout campouts as well - some people have the idea that thinking or reading a book in solitude is profoundly dangerous to group cohesion. Why can't quiet solitude be scheduled, just like cleaning the toilets or whatever? It might even improve group cohesion.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | August 22, 2010 2:48 PM

at least this particular extremist nutball has been kicked out

He'll still retire with a general's pension; the taxpayers aren't done paying for him, yet.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 22, 2010 3:01 PM

He won't be able to retire with a pension if he gets court-martialed and it might send a useful lesson to other religious bullies, of whatever persuasion.

Posted by: Steve | August 22, 2010 4:24 PM

I'm retired from the Air Force, and had "atheist" listed as my religious affiliation (including on my dog tags). I don't recall ever running into a situation like this one, but if I had, I would have made not just an EO complaint, but also an IG complaint and would have written to my member of congress. I'm glad to hear that idiot general has been reassigned, and that the system apparently works. However, if it had been up to me, he would have been forced to retire under threat of court martial.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 22, 2010 5:08 PM

eflask @ 113;

here's my prayer for the day:

Well, that's a heck of a lot better than most prayers, and I would have far more respect for religion and the religious if there were more prayers like it. Well, apart from the whole magic-incantation-to-an-unevidenced-sky-fairy stuff, but I cannot expect to have everything, now can I?

Just so long as you don't actually expect the prayer to be answered, you'll be just fine...

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | August 22, 2010 5:49 PM

Basic is also training for war and all that it encompasses.

It's also indoctrination. It's where the importance of the collective over the individual is emphasized and the recruit's sense of individuality is broken down. It's the first stage of turning human beings into killers that will follow orders and not ask why. That's why tools like sleep deprivation, collective punishment, and collective reward are used. In an environment that exists to indoctrinate having religious bullshit thrown into the mix is particularly pernicious.

Posted by: KG | August 22, 2010 6:17 PM

I actually feel better knowing that it's military members who run the military. IMO, it's safer for me, it's safer for my shipmates, and it's safer for whatever mission we may be running.

I'm not so concerned about you, your shipmates, or your mission, as about the people on the other end of that mission. You wag your finger at Bush. If the people near the top of the "chain of command" had had the integrity to resign rather than take part in an immoral and illegal war, you might have a point.

Posted by: duanerobertson | August 22, 2010 7:52 PM

You're correct, KG, that basic training is a sort of brainwashing. It breaks down your emotional defenses so that you can learn quickly, the idea being to get troops into the field very fast, in a state that allows them to survive. It's a tradition that works, though it's not very pleasant for either the trainers or the trainees. Still, most of us come away with no worse scars than you might get out of a trip to summer camp.

However, I keep hearing this idea that our servicemen have been turned into cold-blooded killers, and I have yet to see any evidence for it. I never ran into these murderous individuals that some of you keep talking about in my twenty years of service, and even if some soldiers do respond that way, it doesn't mean that the majority of them (or even a significant number) do. That's not to say that there haven't been a few psychotics in the military, but then again, there are also plenty in the general population, and part of the purpose of basic training is to spot crazies and get them out as quickly as possible.

If a man isn't willing to fight (and kill, if necessary) for his country, he isn't likely to join the military to begin with. If you go into the recruiting station with a readiness to kill the enemy, you're likely to come out of basic training the same way. I suspect that some of you have a disagreement with the type of personality that lends itself to military service, not the military's training techniques.

I think I should emphasize that our military are not trained to carry out illegal orders--just the opposite. There have been military organizations in the past where mindless obedience was encouraged, but they tended to be overwhelmed by soldiers who were taught to think independently. In WWII the German army beat the Russians in a number of battles because they were willing to rewrite the rules when necessary and the Russians, all too frequently, weren't.

If your problem (I'm speaking to everyone) is simply with the idea that one man can trust another man's judgment enough to fight an enemy on his say-so, then I'm not sure how I can explain it to you.

The President is ultimately responsible for what our military does, and he answers to you, the people. He has a lot more information at his fingertips, and a lot more expert advice about where and when we need to apply pressure than I do. At each level of the chain of command, each officer and NCO uses every ounce of information and training they have to carry out the President's orders. All of us are trained, and most of us highly motivated, to do so in the least destructive way possible.

Fighting doesn't always equal killing, and killing is not all that your servicemen have trained for, but it's an unfortunate fact that war causes death. War is always a bad thing, even when it's necessary, and you might think that only a bad person would be involved in something like that, but you'd be wrong. Keeping people locked up in prison is a bad thing too, but the alternatives tend to be considerably worse.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | August 22, 2010 11:30 PM

Thus spake mmelliott01:

Please tell me you aren't talking about that anti-military tract from Jack Chick!

Pretty sure it wasn't. The reason I knew of the thing in the first place was a news story about it on CBC or CTV. The interviews with the artists were a couple of ex-military personnel who wanted to dissuade other young people from going through experiences that they themselves did.

I'm sure that what was portrayed in the comic were worst case scenarios and a compilation of everything going wrong at once (hey, the movie Memphis Belle!), but after that I never gave military service another moment's thought.

Posted by: Arakasi1 | August 23, 2010 11:06 AM

Sorry, vanbeverningk (#18) It doesn't appear that Chambers was kicked out. He is the new Director of Logistics at the US Army Central Command - which puts him in charge of the Army's logistics train supporting Iraq & Afghanistan.

He may not have as much of an opportunity to screw with his soldiers as he did with a base command, but I really can't see a way that this would be considered a punishment

Posted by: Ch'tturgha | August 23, 2010 6:44 PM

@KG #123

Responding to (a) first: Compare those rates with others who have been on a constant 12-18 months away from home in a combat zone, back for 6 months, gone for another 12-18, etc., until their stint is over. Or, for kicks, compare those rates to people (soldiers or not, I don't care) suffering from PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). I'm willing to bet the statistics are pretty similar. Driving supplies down a road to help build an infrastructure (that typically did not exist in the first place) should not be a life-threatening experience, but it definitely is in certain parts of the world.

On to (b): "some" of just about everything amount to abuse. People get molested/abused at summer camps, yes, but people also suffer the same fate in schools, at home, on a bus, in prison, etc. The original post to which you were responding was referring to what is far, far, far more normal -- an outing, under vague supervision, where the stupidity of youth is the only threat to one's health. Kids will fall out of trees, hit each other with sticks, tumble down hillsides, etc., but that's normal, and those are normal scars. Don't try to dissemble like that, it's offensive and utterly unrelated.

Now, for the rest of the argument... Was the order to deploy to Iraq illegal? Well, that's an interesting question. Were the orders legally given under US law by those with the authority to do so? To the best of my knowledge, yes, they absolutely were. As a result, to anybody under US law and/or in the US military, they were legal orders. Were they illegal under international law? I'm not sure, but, while the case could probably be made, I doubt it could be proved to such an extent as to make it patently illegal. There are a lot of classified documents in a lot of countries; without access to all of those, and probably to any number that were destroyed, it would be pretty difficult to reach even a "mostly certain" awareness of the events leading up to the war.

I don't think any rational person in any military, US or otherwise, can possibly believe that a military is a benign force. If used, it will cause suffering and loss of life, period. However, one can believe that the military institution overall does more good than harm. Abolishing a military (even that of the United States) would not somehow make the world a safer place, because there will always be those who wish to take from others by force what we like to call their "natural rights". Now, an argument can be made that "national interest" was overstressed or abused during certain military actions, but that does not turn the lot of soldiers in a military (current, past, and future) into "cold-blooded killers".

Did I agree with the (most-recent) Iraq war? No, I didn't, but I also wasn't asked. I do, however, think the US military has done its best to provide a stable infrastructure in the wake of that war. There are plenty of people I know who think the US should have simply left as soon as Saddam Hussein was in custody, nevermind the power vacuum that would have left for warlords, clerics, etc. to take up. Somalia has been left to the mercy of warlords for more than twenty years now, so it would be interesting to see someone try to make the case that supporting the creation of infrastructure is a bad thing.

Basically, stop generalizing your hatred, KG. It's ugly and irrational, and you should stop ripping into duanerobertson's ass because you have a beef with the US military which you have poorly supported with rhetoric and allusions to fact. Putting words into another's mouth is nasty business, but it's especially foolish when you quote the source right there who is pretty clearly not saying what you claim.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 23, 2010 7:37 PM

"Now, for the rest of the argument... Was the order to deploy to Iraq illegal? Well, that's an interesting question. Were the orders legally given under US law by those with the authority to do so? To the best of my knowledge, yes, they absolutely were. As a result, to anybody under US law and/or in the US military, they were legal orders. Were they illegal under international law? I'm not sure, but, while the case could probably be made, I doubt it could be proved to such an extent as to make it patently illegal. "

It doesn't help your case when you basically say "It's legal because we got away with it"

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 24, 2010 1:21 PM

otrame--

If the point is, in part, to break recruits out of a mindset, that should include the mindset "go to church every Sunday morning." Scheduling services only on Sunday mornings is preferring one religion over another; do Jewish soldiers get time Friday night or Saturday morning to pray while everyone who isn't going to synagogue gets to clean the barracks?

Even if they decide that there are more Christians than members of other religions in the military, so they should have services on the Christian sabbath, having the services Sunday at 5 p.m. instead of in the morning would make sense if they're trying to break people out of a mindset. Instead, they are reinforcing the civilian Christian mindset that church is Sunday morning. (That's in addition to the other issues here.)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 24, 2010 2:30 PM

@KG

BUT THEY CAN'T CONVICT SO IT WAS THE RIGHT THING!!!